Finlander V Firstplus

[finlander]

OK... here goes... had a secured loan with FP. paid it off when I got married and moved. S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent about 3 weeks ago and arrived within 2 weeks. found that I had a £5950 premium. No call logs or transcripts sent.

Sent this letter to them


Dear Sir/Madam,

RE ; AGREEMENT NO- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


I am writing to request that the Payment Protection Insurance sold at the time the above loan was taken out is refunded in full to me, and that interest, which has accrued to date, be similarly refunded. The amount of the insurance amounts to £5979.00p, the interest owed to date amounts to £ 1488.72p. This is based on this policy being miss-sold and the standard interest rate of 8% charged by the county court.

The total I wish refunded is £7467.72p

My reasons for reclaiming are:

1.At no time was I told that PPI could be purchased elsewhere to cover the loan


2. It was not made clear that the insurance was only valid for the first five years of the loan - in fact the first time this became apparent was on receipt of the information requested about the account under the Data Protection Act.


3. I was led to believe that Payment Protection Insurance was compulsory and indeed was misled into thinking that I would stand more chance of getting the loan if I took the Payment Protection Insurance


4. It was not explained to me that there were certain exclusions within the policy that could affect me.

5. The Payment Protection Insurance was added to the loan balance at the outset and at no time was it explained that there were PPI policies where one could pay monthly for substantially lower premiums and which would cover my clients for the whole term of the loan.


6. The terms & conditions of the insurance were not fully explained

7. At the time of taking out the insurance I already had in force, and had for a number of years, a insurance policy from my work to cover me against, accident, illness or death. The agent selling the insurance made no enquiries into this.

8. The agent told me that the insurance policy was in fact a very good way of saving, as half the premium would be refunded in five years. He did not explain that this was the term of the insurance. He did not explain that the entire premium was added to the loan and that no refund would be available if settled early.

I believe that this policy was miss-sold. I require you to make all necessary investigations into this matter and would request the above sum is refunded to me immediately.

The above amount does not include interest paid to your company on the insurance premium whilst the loan was running. If it becomes necessary to take this matter further these sums will also be reclaimed increasing your liability. As a matter of goodwill I am not requesting them at this time.

I notice as well that within my subject access request I asked for all transcripts of phone calls. These have not been provided. If these do in fact exist and I find that they have been withheld I shall of course be complaining to the Data Commissioners office.

I would be grateful if you could respond quickly to this complaint and when you do, if your answer is in the negative, can you clearly state that is your final response.

This will then allow me to pass the complaint on quickly to the Financial ombudsman.

Please respond within 6 weeks of receipt of this letter.

I reserve the right to commence legal action at anytime to recover the above monies.

Yours truly,


Have received a response saying they are looking into it and trying to locate transcripts of calls and tape copies and will let me know by 22nd April.

Anyone else had dealings with these people and can give me a heads up on their tactics?

[Goldlady]

Yes - and won.

First Plus PPI reclaim for my friends **WON**

I suspect you are on the right track anyway.

Best of luck

[Braveheart Bear]

Morning Finlander,
Looks like you are in the same boat as myself, although we have the two claims ongoing.
Can I assume your response date is 22nd May, not April, if so, it's going to be interesting waiting to see who gets a response first.
Every time I read the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) documentation or listen to our tapes, we seem to get another nail to hammer into the coffin.

[Bog]

Looks like it's gonna be a busy month at First Plus!

[finlander]

okay... firstplus replied today. Basically their letter says that he has listened to the tapes (I havnt even got them yet) and that he says the policy wasn't miss-sold!!! well thats cleared that up then! Well done Firstplus..HOOrah. The most important part is that he says that they didn't need to ask any questions about previous medical conditions of other insurance as they weren't regulated by the FSA in Nov 2004 so didn't need to ask 'demands and needs questions'. Is this true? It seems that what they are saying is 'As we werent regulated by any sort of authority we were entitled to rip you off' . Looking at their terms set through they were regulated by GISC however. I have tried to look up the GISC code of conduct but it keeps taking me to a website to sell me car insurance.

So the urgent questions I have for my fellow CAGERS are -

1. will the FOS investigate?

2. where can I get a copy of the GISC code?

3. Is it true that they didn't have to ask ny questions?

4. What now?

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by finlander

okay... firstplus replied today. Basically their letter says that he has listened to the tapes (I havnt even got them yet) and that he says the policy wasn't miss-sold!!! well thats cleared that up then! Well done Firstplus..HOOrah. The most important part is that he says that they didn't need to ask any questions about previous medical conditions of other insurance as they weren't regulated by the FSA in Nov 2004 so didn't need to ask 'demands and needs questions'. Is this true? It seems that what they are saying is 'As we werent regulated by any sort of authority we were entitled to rip you off' . Looking at their terms set through they were regulated by GISC however. I have tried to look up the GISC code of conduct but it keeps taking me to a website to sell me car insurance.

So the urgent questions I have for my fellow CAGERS are -

1. will the FOS investigate? probably No, but you can ring them for advice

2. where can I get a copy of the GISC code?Have a look in Alanalana links thread

3. Is it true that they didn't have to ask ny questions? No, even under the code of practice by the gisc they had to ensure the product was fully explained and sold fit for purpose

4. What now?

Hello Finlandar,

This is a standard fobb off letter, keep at them. They hide behind the fact that they were not regulated by the fsa, so the fos will not investigate your claim, but they had to be regulated and of course, there is always the court route, that would make them sit up and take notice

[finlander]

thanks for that... I was hoping someone would giva a bit of moral support and as usual CAG come up trumps.

let me see what to do now..... ok I have sent this by email to mr Mullins.


Dear Mr Mullins,
Thank you for your letter of the 16th May 2008 outlining your rejection of my complaint and the reasons that you felt it was unfounded. I am replying in email but shall also be sending this letter in hard copy. You may reply if you wish by email or letter.
I have considered your response and consider it to be unfair, self serving and to a great extent not backed up by any evidence of due care. I consider it particularly interesting that in response to my contention that no effort was made by your company to confirm my eligibility for this policy you respond by stating this was not done as you weren’t regulated by the FSA! How interesting that will sound in court, ‘Your honour we were not regulated by the FSA at the time so were perfectly entitled to mislead and con Mr Pearce into buying a policy that neither covered him or he needed for 569 times the monthly rate of the next best policy’.
I have already outlined my concerns in my first letter and have no intention of listing them again. All I will say is each point is still of concern and I feel you have addressed none of them.
My actions now will be the following ;-
1. I shall send an official complaint to the FOS.
2. I have today written requesting a full copy of the GISC codes of conduct (which your company was bound by)
3. I have written to various Media companies and their consumer affairs shows today outlining my concerns at the outrageous premium charged by you. As a matter of interest I received a quote for PPI today covering the amount borrowed of £30,000 and it came to £10.51p a month for the period of the loan! That would mean 569 months just to catch up with your premium let alone the interest you charged!
4. I have sent your responses, my subject access request information and various supporting documentation to my solicitor with a view to commencing legal action immediately should the FOS refuse to investigate the complaint.
I would like you to send me all copies of audio tapes you have regarding this account immediately. I do not wish CD’s etc just simple audio cassettes of all phone conversations between myself and your representatives.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your quick reply. However I hope you will now understand that I have no intention of just going away. I believe that your company has acted in a highly dishonest matter in selling me this insurance and I really urge you to understand that you have been ‘rumbled’. I intend to take this matter as far as possible in order to ensure that justice is done. In the court action that may follow I will be requesting a full breakdown of your premium , sales commission etc in order to prove your staffs vested interest in selling a grossly over priced product.
May I remind you that the burden of proof in relation to Misrepresentation Act claims:

That a customer should be able to rely on the information given, and that even without an intent to misrepresent, if the consequences of a misrepresentation are such that a customer is disadvantaged then that is enough.

It also establishes that a clause in a contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail. As shown in Howard Marine V A Ogden (1975)
Then there is the concealed commission agreement in Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299 , which states;
It was held that the broker may only receive commission if the borrower
consented to this with full knowledge of all material circumstances. The
Court of Appeal held that the commission, in this case, was not ""secret""
but informed consent had not been given as the amount of commission
had not been disclosed. (Accordingly they awarded the amount of the
commission plus 1.29% simple interest from the date of the agreement’’s
inception).

The Court also held that in cases where the broker does not disclose
that she is in receipt of commission from the lender, the commission
will be ""secret"", the broker potentially guilty of fraud, and the entire
loan liable to be rescinded.

Implications

The legal teams of all members who pay commission to brokers should
consider the impact of the decision on their business.

Another interesting document regarding conflicts of interest comes from the Chartered Insurance Institute. It is guidance for members on dealing with potential conflicts of interest, and whilst it is not binding on loan companies, the document must be seen as a very authoritative view of potential conflicts of interest and the risk to customers where those conflicts are not properly managed.

Of particular note is this paragraph on mitigating potential conflicts:Some examples of methods which can be used to manage potential conflicts include:
· a hospitality and/or gift register;
· restrictions on gifts and hospitality individuals may accept;
· information barriers or ‘‘chinese walls’’ between different business units to prevent free flow of confidential information;
· changes to remuneration arrangements for the firm and individual staff to avoid incentives and targets which may encourage misuse of information or giving poor advice;
· increasing disclosure to clients and obtaining informed consents from them;
· information systems designed to provide timely and accurate information;
· reporting structures to build in checks and balances to promote objective judgement;
· recording of and justification for decisions when selecting products or suppliers;
· documenting why and how recommendations are being made to customers;
· complaints handling and claims settlement procedures.
I would particularly draw your attention to the advice regarding remuneration.
I now also intend to claim for all interest paid on the premium as well as the statutory 8% allowed by the county court.
As for making a complaint through your club the FLA I notice at least one interesting paragraph from their code -


1.1 As full members of the Finance & Leasing
Association (FLA), we promise we will:
™act fairly, reasonably and responsibly in all our
dealings with you;

™ act honestly and try to make sure that credit
brokers, and all other suppliers of goods and
services we do business with, do the same;

™ train our staff to make sure that the procedures
they follow reflect the commitments set out
in this code; and

Speaks volumes really, especially as this term is compulsory, but I will leave my search for recompense to the FOS and the courts.

Yours sincerely ,




WELL THERE YOU GO...THEY STARTED IT!!!!

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by finlander

thanks for that... I was hoping someone would giva a bit of moral support and as usual CAG come up trumps.

let me see what to do now..... ok I have sent this by email to mr Mullins.


Dear Mr Mullins,
Thank you for your letter of the 16th May 2008 outlining your rejection of my complaint and the reasons that you felt it was unfounded. I am replying in email but shall also be sending this letter in hard copy. You may reply if you wish by email or letter.
I have considered your response and consider it to be unfair, self serving and to a great extent not backed up by any evidence of due care. I consider it particularly interesting that in response to my contention that no effort was made by your company to confirm my eligibility for this policy you respond by stating this was not done as you weren’t regulated by the FSA! How interesting that will sound in court, ‘Your honour we were not regulated by the FSA at the time so were perfectly entitled to mislead and con Mr Pearce into buying a policy that neither covered him or he needed for 569 times the monthly rate of the next best policy’.
I have already outlined my concerns in my first letter and have no intention of listing them again. All I will say is each point is still of concern and I feel you have addressed none of them.
My actions now will be the following ;-
1. I shall send an official complaint to the FOS.
2. I have today written requesting a full copy of the GISC codes of conduct (which your company was bound by)
3. I have written to various Media companies and their consumer affairs shows today outlining my concerns at the outrageous premium charged by you. As a matter of interest I received a quote for PPI today covering the amount borrowed of £30,000 and it came to £10.51p a month for the period of the loan! That would mean 569 months just to catch up with your premium let alone the interest you charged!
4. I have sent your responses, my subject access request information and various supporting documentation to my solicitor with a view to commencing legal action immediately should the FOS refuse to investigate the complaint.
I would like you to send me all copies of audio tapes you have regarding this account immediately. I do not wish CD’s etc just simple audio cassettes of all phone conversations between myself and your representatives.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your quick reply. However I hope you will now understand that I have no intention of just going away. I believe that your company has acted in a highly dishonest matter in selling me this insurance and I really urge you to understand that you have been ‘rumbled’. I intend to take this matter as far as possible in order to ensure that justice is done. In the court action that may follow I will be requesting a full breakdown of your premium , sales commission etc in order to prove your staffs vested interest in selling a grossly over priced product.
May I remind you that the burden of proof in relation to Misrepresentation Act claims:

That a customer should be able to rely on the information given, and that even without an intent to misrepresent, if the consequences of a misrepresentation are such that a customer is disadvantaged then that is enough.

It also establishes that a clause in a contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail. As shown in Howard Marine V A Ogden (1975)
Then there is the concealed commission agreement in Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] EWCA Civ 299 , which states;
It was held that the broker may only receive commission if the borrower
consented to this with full knowledge of all material circumstances. The
Court of Appeal held that the commission, in this case, was not ""secret""
but informed consent had not been given as the amount of commission
had not been disclosed. (Accordingly they awarded the amount of the
commission plus 1.29% simple interest from the date of the agreement’’s
inception).

The Court also held that in cases where the broker does not disclose
that she is in receipt of commission from the lender, the commission
will be ""secret"", the broker potentially guilty of fraud, and the entire
loan liable to be rescinded.

Implications

The legal teams of all members who pay commission to brokers should
consider the impact of the decision on their business.

Another interesting document regarding conflicts of interest comes from the Chartered Insurance Institute. It is guidance for members on dealing with potential conflicts of interest, and whilst it is not binding on loan companies, the document must be seen as a very authoritative view of potential conflicts of interest and the risk to customers where those conflicts are not properly managed.

Of particular note is this paragraph on mitigating potential conflicts:Some examples of methods which can be used to manage potential conflicts include:
· a hospitality and/or gift register;
· restrictions on gifts and hospitality individuals may accept;
· information barriers or ‘‘chinese walls’’ between different business units to prevent free flow of confidential information;
· changes to remuneration arrangements for the firm and individual staff to avoid incentives and targets which may encourage misuse of information or giving poor advice;
· increasing disclosure to clients and obtaining informed consents from them;
· information systems designed to provide timely and accurate information;
· reporting structures to build in checks and balances to promote objective judgement;
· recording of and justification for decisions when selecting products or suppliers;
· documenting why and how recommendations are being made to customers;
· complaints handling and claims settlement procedures.
I would particularly draw your attention to the advice regarding remuneration.
I now also intend to claim for all interest paid on the premium as well as the statutory 8% allowed by the county court.
As for making a complaint through your club the FLA I notice at least one interesting paragraph from their code -


1.1 As full members of the Finance & Leasing
Association (FLA), we promise we will:
™act fairly, reasonably and responsibly in all our
dealings with you;

™ act honestly and try to make sure that credit
brokers, and all other suppliers of goods and
services we do business with, do the same;

™ train our staff to make sure that the procedures
they follow reflect the commitments set out
in this code; and

Speaks volumes really, especially as this term is compulsory, but I will leave my search for recompense to the FOS and the courts.

Yours sincerely ,




WELL THERE YOU GO...THEY STARTED IT!!!!

Exellent letter, bravo

Glad to see that you have risen to the occassion.

Let battle commence, like you say, they started it

Keep us posted

[Goldlady]

Hi, yes, ace letter.

I need to tell you that we had the 'we were not regulated at the time' bull as well - and as someone commented on my thread 'well what were they then, loan sharks?'. But we received the offer of a refund about a week later before I had even thought of a suitable reply.

Here's hoping.

[Braveheart Bear]

Quick update with a little "GISC" stuff. Hope it helps.
Link To GISC Code Of Conduct Example

[finlander]

thanks for everyones support. Well the email went off and we shall se what the loan sharks say. I hope they understand that I have every intention of taking this as far as it will go.

[finlander]

complaint form sent of to FOS and copy emailed to Mr Mullins at Firstplus. Not sure if they will investigate due to it being 2004 but have to give it a go before the court route.

[alanalana]

Hello finlander,

I have spoken to a member of the FOS and he said the FOS would look at complaints within the 6 year Statute so give it a shot.

You can find all the details of the FOS in the links thread in stickies, but if you need more detail just shout I have already got complaints lodged with the Information Commissioners Office, FOS, OFT, FSA, British Bankers Association and yes the Royal Mail for losing 33% of my complaints to the others.

Keep at it and good luck

aa